My Senior Seminar Thesis at Southern Illinois University, Anthropology.
Below are photos and the paper than I wrote for my senior thesis in Anthropology at Southern Illinois University.
Morphological and Archaeological Comparisons of the Levantine Neandertal and Archaic Homo sapiens Complexes.
by James P. Zaworski
In the field of paleoanthropology, where to place the Neandertals has been an unresolved and highly charged issue.When paleoanthropologists compare the morphology of Neandertals and Homo sapiens sapiens,usually the case is to compare the most robust, or “classic” Neandertals from Western Europe with the very gracile “Cro-Magnon” Homo sapiens sapiens from Europe.I think that this comparison can be a valid one, but only when also making comparisons of the Archaic Homo sapiens group and the Neanderthal group from the Near East.In this region, there are many cave sites situated in the modern state of Israel where the two groups lived side by side.Among the sites here are those of Kebara, Qafzeh, Tabun, Amud, Mount Carmel and Skhul.To me, the specimens overlap, where we have robust Archaic Homo sapiens that appear to fall into the range of Neanderthal characteristic morphology.There are many controversies about this region as well, particularly in terms of the dating of the sites.Some paleoanthropologists have suggested that these sites were inhabited at the same time, others say that each group occupied a particular site seasonally, retreated to other areas, and the sites were re-occupied by the other groups.Other paleoanthropologists suggest that the time frame for occupation differed by some 30,000 years and the two groups could never have had contact with one another.Perhaps both groups were really just one variable group of early humans that moved around, foraged, inhabited the same area, and mingled from time to time.This paper will compare the morphology and the material technological culture of these two groups of Hominids, and argue that because of their shared morphology, shared time and space, and shared technology, and that the two groups are actually part of one variable population.
Morphological Traits and Variation.
It is imperative to my discussion here to set out the accepted morphological traits that defines how a Neandertal is classified , and how an Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens (AMHS), is classified.This is not as cut and dry as it seems.Depending on which paleoanthropologist is doing the analysis, there really isn’t an accepted laundry list of characteristic traits that are consistently used.When paleoanthropologists compare the morphology of Neandertals and AMHS, it is usually the case to compare the most robust or “classic” Neandertals from Western Europe with the most gracile “Cro-Magnon” Homo sapiens from Europe.This is not a fair comparison by a long shot,in terms of variation, because these two are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of general skeletal and cranial robusticity on the one hand with the Classic Western European Neandertals and extreme skeletal and cranial gracility on the part of the Cromagnon. Where this becomes much more confusing is in the Levantine area of the Middle East, in the modern state of Israel, because the specimens that have been discovered at the various sites, such as Skhul, Amud, Qafzeh, Tabun, Kebara, and Mount Carmel all display characteristics that are intermediate in their morphological characteristics.(Wolpoff, 1999:594, 612).Further confusion comes into the picture, as the anatomically modern Homo sapiens have also been dubbed “proto-Cro-Magnons”, implying that these are indeed the true ancestors and precursors of modern Homo sapiens.(Bar-Yosef, 1988:31).
A discussion of the definition of accepted traits for both taxa is required and is as follows.
Neandertal Traits.
The Cranium.
It seems that there are different numbers of traits used to determine what is a Neandertal and what is not a Neandertal.Milford Wolpoff writes(1999): “No single feature can diagnose a Neandertal, any more than forensic scientists attempting to identify human dead can tell which race and individual comes from with a single osteological fragment”.Among the eight most commonly accepted diagnostic traits that define Neandertals are the following: an occipital bun, a suprainic fossa, position of the mastoid crest, position of the juxtamastoid crest, position of the mastoid process, the supraorbital torus, the supraorbital sulcus, a receding frontal bone, and lambdoidal flattening.( Kreger, C. David 2003, Wolpoff 1999).However, A. P. Santa Luca (in Kreger, D. C., 1978) used only four of these eight traits as being diagnostic of derived Neandertal traits: the presence of the suprainic fossa, the the mastoid crest, the juxtamastoid eminence, and the presence of a horizontal occipital torus with uniform vertical dimensions that has little occipital protuberance.
In addition to these traits, there are the general considerations of the shape of the cranium that are to be considered.The general shape of the Neandertal cranium is long and low, with a low forehead and with the presence of pronounced brow ridges. (Tatersall, 1995:12). The face of the Neandertals is another trait of note.Kreger (2003) highlights the characteristics of the face: “The Neanderthal face is distinctive for its significant midfacial prognathism. Features involved in this prognathism include a very anterior midface, retreated zygomatics, anterior position of the dentition, and the anterior position of the nasal aperture.”The overall size of the Neandertal cranium is impressive, with cranial capacity exceeding modern Homo sapiens populations (Wolpoff, 1999:663-664).On average, Neandertal cranial capacities for Wurmian populations is 1575 cubic centimeters (cc), whereas the average for modern Europeans is 1555 cc. (Wolpoff, 1999:664).The largest Neandertal cranial capacity recorded is, interestingly enough, of Amud I, which is 1740 cc in size, exceeding the largest European Neandertal’s 1641 cc of the La Ferrassie specimen. (Suzuki, H. and F. Takai, 1970:124).
Further, there are characteristic Neandertal traits in the mandible.Modern humans posess a forward projecting chin, and the Neandertals do not, being characterized as “chinless wonders”.In addition to this, Neandertals have a gap behind the third molar and in front of the vertical ramus of the mandible. (Tatersall, 1995:13)This is also referred to as the retromolar gap. (Wolpoff, 1999:811), and is considered to one of the more diagnostic features of Neandertals.
The Neandertal face, as described by the classic forms, was dominated by a very prominent nose; overall, the face of the classic Neandertal was characterized byprognathism. (Wolpoff, 1999:667).The size of the nose is supposed to be related to cold adaptation. (Wolpoff, 1999:668-669).
Postcranial Traits.
Postcranially, Neandertals had a build that was “…more robust than that of modern people, and generally shorter, with a broad rib cage, long collar bones, and wide shoulder blades. Forearms and lower legs were relatively short, and the limb bones heavily built with thick walls. Joining surfaces were large.In the pelvis the hip joint faced further outward, and at the front the upper surface of the pubis was long and slender. The hands were especially strongly build, with broad fingertips. (Tatersall, 1995:14).Neandertals have been described as “short and stocky”, but this description is usually made in comparison to modern humans.For the known postcranial remains, the average height of eight male Neandertals was 165 cm, and for five females, an average of 156 cm.(Wolpoff, 1999:676).Weight estimates are more tricky, but for European Neandertals, estimates range from an average of 80 kg for females and 84 kg for males.(Wolpoff, 1999:676).
Variation.
Variation is an important theme when looking at populations.Between populations, you have variation in morphology.Within populations there always exists variation in morphology.Variation is and can be a relative term and is one that can often breed some degree of confusion, depending on what you are comparing.Wolpoff (1989:97) states that “the problem has become one of the relationship of Neandertals to the European populations of today”.There can be some degree of confusion in terms of agreement in what traits are typically Neandertal, and what aren’t.Sometimes the same paleoanthropologist has trouble agreeing with himself on these traits.
In the Levantine site of Amud, Tatersall(1995a:181) mentions the skeleton of a young male Neandertal who was “the tallest Neandertal yet discovered, with a stature of about five feet ten inches).He goes on to say “…even quite late Near Eastern Neanderthals failed to show the exaggerated characteristics of their kind exhibited by their “classic” contemporaries in western Europe. If the Amud individual was unusually tall, then another Neanderthal from the not too far distant and approximately contemporaneous Israeli cave of Kebara was unusually massive”. (Tatersall, 1995a:181-182).
Does it seem to be a fair comparison, to compare Neandertals of “classic” typology with modern human populations?I think the comparisons in terms of variation have to certainly be made between groups that exist in a contiguous geographic area, sharing the same area, the same resources, and similar morphologies.
AMHS Traits.
Anatomically modern humans are supposed to be more “gracile” than Neandertals.Cranially, there is increased encephalization.G. Brauer examines up to 100 metrical and non-metrical characters in determining how to quantify the 1)shape and size of the cranial bones by means of measurements and descriptive characters, and 2) to determine the development of the phylogenetrically relevant superstructures by means of descriptive characters. (Brauer, 1993:448-449).Six general features to define anatomically modern Homo sapiens have been put forth, and these comprise five metrically determined characteristics and one observable feature: 1) a short, high cranium with a ratio of basion-bregma height to length of 0.70 or a vertex radius to glabello-occipitallenght ratio of 0.64; 2)a parietal angle of less than 138 degrees; 3) a bregma-asterion chord/biaserionic breadth ratio of more than 1.19; 4) a frontal angle of less than 133 degrees; 5) a discontinuous supra-orbital torus; 6) an occipital angle of greater than 114 degrees. (Kidder and Jantz, 1992:157).We get a much more reasonable assessment of the characteristics of the morphological changes that characterize modern Homo sapiens from Wolpoff (1999:722-723): There is a lower face reduced significantly; “Supraorbital reduction and a straighter frontofacial angle; a foramen magnum shifting rearward relative to the sides of the cranial base, a reduction in mandible length as the face becomes less prognathic;as well as overall changes in the robusticity of the cranium and post-cranial morphology and anatomy.Basically AMHS has a high skull, high maximum breadth, rounded skull, weak or absent browridge and a strong chin.
Shared Morphological Traits in the Levant or Polymorphology?
The fossils themselves have to be addressed here in terms of their current classification, distinctive morphological traits, and why they are considered to be classified as they are and by whom, and why.We will begin with the sites considered to be Levantine Neandertal sites, and then move on to the ones considered to be Levantine AMHS sites.
Amud.
The site of Amud is considered to be a Levantine example of a specimen that is Neandertal in morphology, and there are at least 16 specimens represented from this site (Wolpoff, 1999:610).The most complete specimen is Amud I, who is the tallest Neandertal ever found, being 174 cm tall, and with a long cranium that is the largest cranial capacity of any of the Levant specimens at 1,740 cubic centimeters. (Wolpoff, 1999:611; Suzuki & Takei, 1970:124).Figure 1-2 show the Amud I cranium.
On cursory examination, it is evident that Amud I is of Neandertal extraction.However, Amud I is very similar, in terms of cranial morphology, to the specimen of Skhul VI (See Figures 5 and 6), which is considered to be of AMHS stock.Suzuki and Takai (1970), consider Amud I to be “less advanced” than the Shanidar specimens, which is considered to be Neandertal in typology, but also “morphologically less advanced” than Skhul VI, but also similar enough in cranial morphology to be considered to be included in the typology of Skhul VI.Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998) have done a re-evaluation of Amud I’s morphology, particularly of the cranium.They have found Amud I’s cranial to be intermediate between Neandertal and AMHS in morphology. (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998:314).Amud I’s post-cranial anatomy is “as distinct as its cranium and it differs from those of both the Neandertals and AMHS”. (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998:315).This statement flies in the face of those who would characterize Amud I as being “classic Neandertal” in morphology.
Tabun.
The site of Tabun is another that has been considered to be one of the Levantine sites with Neandertal representatives.The specimen of Tabun I, is male, and is shown in Figure 7. Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998:313), indicate that the specimens of Tabun I and Tabun II, based on a reevaluation of the cranial and mandibular evidence,are intermediates between AMHS and Neandertal.Further, the female specimen Tabun II has one of those hallmarks of AMHS, and that is that Tabun II has a chin!(Rak, 1998:354).Rak states quite clearly: “I would like to stress, therefore, that my insistence on recognizing a true chin in Tabun II is based on the topography of the anterior section of the mandible, which consists of the unique morphological components defined above as constituting a true chin.”(Rak, 1998:355).In addition to this, the retromolar space, one of those typical characteristics of Neandertals, is missing in the mandible of Tabun II. (Rak, 1998:360-361)So again, we see here a mix of traits that are intermediate between Neandertals and AMHS.
Kebara.
The site of Kebara is considered to be Neandertal, and the specimen from Kebara is that of a male postcranial skeleton, as well as the mandible and hyoid bone (the first intact hyoid discovered of a Neandertal, See Figure 8). (Wolpoff, 1999).Unfortunately, the cranium is missing from Kebara 2.(See figure 9).The reason that the discovery of the hyoid bone of a Neandertal is so important is because in the debate over whether or not Neandertals were capable of producing speech, it was previously thought that their hyoid bone was not shaped like the hyoid bone of modern Homo sapiens.(Wolpoff, 1999).
Kebara 2 has been one of those specimens that has been reevaluated in recent literature, and there are new claims that the traits that previously defined it as being Neandertal, are actually traits that are intermediate between AMHS and Neandertal. (Arensburg and Belfur Cohen, 1998:317-318)
Qafzeh.
The specimens of the site of Qafzeh are considered to be anatomically modern Homo sapiens.The classic example is Qafzeh IX, which looks very modern in its features.It is also the “type specimen” for Qafzeh, meaning it is the specimen by which all of the others from the site are compared.However, the specimen of Qafzeh VI is considered to be more “craniophenetically closer to Neandertals than to the true anatomically modern people of the European Upper Paleolithic.”(Corruccini, 1992).Does this discrepancy in morphological mixing of characters at the same cave site indicate that there is something wrong with classifying one site as being either Neandertal or AMHS?Figure 3 is of Qafzeh VI and Figure 4 is Qafzeh IX.Corruccini, (1992:440) argues that “…Qafzeh crania are all too often blithely referred to as anatomically modern, or “fully modern” without supporting argumentation”. So, the championing of the fossil hominids from Qafzeh as being “fully modern” seems to be in doubt, as the specimens again can be considered to be intermediate in form between AMHS and Neandertal.
Skhul.
The site of Skhul is another problematic one in terms of classification.The specimens from Skhul are considered by general consensus to be anatomically modern Homo sapiens.Yet, the cranium Skhul VI, as well as Skhul IX, exhibit many traits that are more Neandertal than AMHS. (Corruccini, 1992).“Craniometric comparison demonstrates that IV and IX amplify the picture of continuous gradations of Neandertal-to-modern variations throughout the Levant; much variation is thus represented within this one site, raising serious questions about Neandertals and moderns being discrete and long-separated species.”(Corruccini, 1992:443).Figure 5 and 6 show Skhul VI, and its mix of Neandertal like traits, and bear out this conclusion.I see a mix of traits characteristic of Neandertal and early Homo sapiens, particularly in Skhul VI.
Arenburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998:311) believe that there really were no morphologically distinct Neandertal’s in the Levant/Near East region, and that the population as a whole was a polymorphic one, with both the “Neandertal” types and AMHS, or “proto-Cro-Magnon” types to be of one constantly changing, continuously evolving population.
Shared Culture: The Archaeology of the Levant.
The dominant technology present in each and every one of these Levantine cave sites is Mousterian, or a mix of Levallois-Mousterian. (Bar-Yosef, 1995).This commonality of a shared technological complex is significant.Why would two separate species, or two separate populations, distinct from one another, and in no way coming into contact with one another have the same tool kit?The Mousterian technology has a very long and old lineage not only in the Levant, but also in Europe as well.The earliest Mousterian technologies present in the Levantine sites is the Levallois-Mousterian, also called Acheoulo-Yabrudian technology, which have been found at Tabun, Kebara, and Shukbah.(Bar-Yosef 1998:40-41).These assemblages, found at the lowest levels of each site respectively, date from 250,000-350,000 years ago. (Bar-Yosef, 1998:45).These technologies and dates indicate the time period associated with Homo erectus.(Wolpoff, 1999).The next tool technology found at all of the Levantine sites is the typical Mousterian technology, regionally dubbed “Tabun D-type”, “Tabun C-type” and “Tabun B-type”.(Bar-Yosef, 1998:44-47).These tool technologies are found at both the sites considered to be Neandertal, and at the sites considered to be AMHS, particularly at Qafzeh and at Skhul.(Bar-Yosef, 1998:47).
Shared Space: The Proximity of Sites and Possibility of Both Forms Present in the Same Site.
The sites in question here are all in a very close geographical area in Southwest Asia.
Bar-Yosef(1998), describes the region of Southwest Asia as a “central bus station” of the Pleistocen migration routes splanning Africa, Asia and Europe.The sites of Qafzeh (See Figure 10), Amud, Skhul, Kebara, and Tabun are all within one hundred kilometers of one another, and often, as in the case of Tabun and Skhul, they are virtually right next door to each other. (Bar-Yosef, 1998:40).I think that since this “central bus station” for human migration was continuously used, and that populations were always meeting and mingling.The fact that there is shared space is significant and it goes hand in glove with the shared technology.Indeed, one paleoanthropologist sees that both AMHS and Neandertals have been found in the one particular site of Tabun. (Rak, 1998:363-364).
Osteometric Measurements and Comparisons Showing Variation.
For the purposes of my argument, I will use the osteometric measurements of the cranium,as these measurements will show that the Hominids from the Levant area are indeed intermediate in comparison to Classic Neandertals of Western Europe, and modern humans, including Cro-Magnons.James Kidder and Richard Jantz(1992) have undertaken a multivariate approach at defining modern humans.Table 1 shows the results of their multivariate approach with special reference to the fossils from Qafzeh, Skhul, Tabun, Amud and Kebara as compared to “Classic Neandertals” , Cro-Magnons, and a sample of modern humans.(See Table 1).It is clear from these osteometric measurements of the crania of Classic Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, modern humans and the Levantine specimens, that the Levantine specimens lie directly in between, statistically speaking, Neandertals and modern humans.
Shared time?Dating of the Levantine sites.
Dating of the various sites in the Levant has been complicated and problematic.The relative dating of sites using stratigraphic methodologies has been augmented by the use of thermoluminescence dating, or TL.Other dating techniques include Electron Spin Resonance, or ESR, and U-series dating.
TL dating can be used as a reliable method of dating burnt flint, and the principle goes something like this: if a flint falls into a fire, it loses the energy it received during prior burial and this event sets the time clock to zero; after a hearth is abandoned, the flint can again store the energy received from within and without. (Valladas, Mercier, Joron, and Reyss, 1998:69-70).The dates that have resulted using TL dating for the sites relevant to this paper are as follows: 1) Qafzeh—102-85 thousand years ago (kya); 2)Skhul—119-118 kya; 3)Tabun—306 kya-171 kya; 4) Kebara—61.6-48.3 kya; 5) Amud—50-70 kya.(Valladas, Mercier, Joron, and Reyss, 1998:70-74).
The ESR dates for two of these sites follow:1) Tabun—386-151 kya; 2) Amud—43-59 kya. (Schwarcz and Rink, 1998:62-64).
The problem that these dates present is that the sites of supposed AMHS are in general before, by thousands of years, the sites with Neandertal specimens, with the exception of the Tabun dates, of course.The different dates presented have fed into the arguments about whether or not these are distinct populations, separated by vast amounts of time.
Multiregional Evolution vs. “Out of Africa Replacement” Theories/Models.
In paleoanthropology there are two dominant theories for the spread of human beings throughout the world, the “multiregional” theory and the “out of Africa” theory, with the additional “replacement” model being added to the latter.In his “Descent of Man”, Charles Darwin who came up with the idea that the human species evolved in Africa.(Campbell, 1985:368).This postulated “leap of faith” that Darwin made was based upon the taxonomic and anatomical similarities that human beings have with the great apes of Africa.Darwin was proved to be right in the end, with the discoveries of early Hominids by Raymond Dart and Louis and Mary Leakey in the twentieth century.Further discoveries on the continent have all but placed Africa as the cradle of human origin.
With discoveries in Asia of Homo erectus and possibly Homo ergaster, the first “out of Africa” migration is dated at between between 2.0 and 1.5 million years ago. (Rightmare, G. P. 1993:381).According to the multiregional model, Homo erectus, in this initial move out of Africa, populated Europe, Western and Eastern Asia, and Indonesia, and gradually arrived in Australia early on, and evolved independently into Homo sapiens. As Wolpoff (1999:543) puts it: “Multiregional evolution is a model of evolutionary process that stems from the basic observation that soe of the combinations of features that distinguish major human groups such as Asians, Australians, and Europeans evolved over a long period of time close to or at the places these people are found today”.The multiregional model allows for a continuous gene flow to occur between these isolated groups, thereby having a situation where an initially polytpical species evolves in a gradualistic way into the one species that we find today, namely, our own.The multiregional model also allows for a punctuated evolution to occur as well.Multiregional evolution does not claim that there is any single one point of origin for our species.
The out of Africa model has within it two ideas, one more extreme than the other.The first is that the fossil record shows that a population of anatomically modern human beings had evolved in Africa and spread out of Africa, and gradually replaced the earlier and more “archaic” human beings; the second is the “eve” hypothesis, that all modern human beings derive from one particular small population of human beings from Africa.(Wolpoff 1999:563-565).
Where things get sticky is the place of Neandertals in these two evolutionary scenarios or models.In the multiregional model, Neandertals evolve into modern Europeans, just as the Homo erectus, in the form of “Peking Man” from the caves of Zhoukoudian in China evolved into modern Chinese peoples, Mungo Man in Australia evolved into modern Australian Aborines, “Java Man” evolved into modern Indonesians, etc. (Wolpoff 1999:565).In the “out of Africa” model, there is implied the theme of “replacement” of the earlier forms that have been discovered in the fossil record.(Wolpoff 1999:563).
Chris Stringer is one of the strongest proponents of this replacement model.He sees complete replacement of all archaic forms of the genus Homo by AMHS between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago. (Stringer, 1992:14).He sees the hominids from Qafzeh and Skhul as being archaic Homo sapiens, and not as intermediate or transitional forms between Neandertals and AMHS.(Stringer, 1992:9).
Discussion.
It has been suggested that the Neandertal specimens that have been found in the Levant, specifically the specimens found at the sites ofAmud, Tabun, and Kebara, were the result of the expansion of the glaciers during a particular cold period in the Wurmian Ice Age.The argument goes that as these glaciers, and the climatic changes that go with them, favored the Neandertals to migrate south out of Europe, and expand their range.Now, whether the “cold adapted” Neandertals needed to retreat from extremes in this glacial period, or they just happened to be adapted to the kind of climate that suddenly presented itself as a range expanding opportunity, depends on the individual doing the research, and whether or not this explanation supports his particular point of view in terms of paleoanthropological theory.If you are a replacement theorist, such as Chris Stringer, you see the ebb and flow of two populations that never come into contact with one another, because of their relative expansion or contraction of their range, due to these climatic shifts and movements of the glaciers.One major flaw I can see in this logic is that modern human beings have been successful, because of their innovations in technology, in colonizing virtually the entire planet!I think it is a major flaw in the “out of Africa” models that there would be only two movements of humanity out of the continent of Africa( well, three if you count the retreat from Qafzeh and Skhul because of inclement weather), in the entire history of our species.I tend to think that there was constant movement throughout the history of our genus and species.The isolation of Classic Neandertals in western Europe seems to be the exception here, and I think that they were the ones who were reproductively isolated from the rest of the gene pool.I think that the Levantine hominids were a polymorphic population, the result of a constant movement of early humanity in and out of Africa.The fact that there is shared technology and shared morphological traits, and shared space should be enough evidence to show that this is the case.The fact that the dating of these sites and specimens places what seems to be the more anatomically modern humans at a date more distant in the past than the hominids which were more “Neandertal-like” does not mean that the population in question was not polymorphic in nature.I think that relying on a very linear view of evolution is risky, and it is also a simplistic view.
Conclusion.
The evidence examined in this paper, namely the morphological comparisons, the archaeological data, the osteometric measurements, and the overlapping time sequences all point to a great degree of likelihood that the populations of Hominids present in the Levantine part of Southwest Asia during the late Pleistocene fall within the definitions of a single population.The strongest supporting data here in favor of this argument is the morphological comparisons and osteometric comparisons, in short, comparing the bones via definitions of morphological characteristics and comparing the measurements of these established osteometric points, particularly those comparisons that describe and measure to cranial anatomy.There is significant statistical overlapping of the measurements to indicate the normal range of variation within one population, or one species.The Levantine Hominids, taken as a group, lie statistically right in between what is considered to be modern Homo sapiens, and Classic Neandertals.
Further supportive evidence is the shared technology and shared culture of both groups, that is, Mousterian culture in the form of the lithic tool kits that both groups possessed.Though some of the materials differ from site to site, it is clear that the technology is the same.The fact that we have the same kind of shared material cultural artifacts in both sites is very significant, as it points to either of two conclusions, that is, that there was at the minimum some sort of interaction between two distinct groups of Hominids, or that since there was shared morphology, space, time, that there would be shared culture as well within the normal variation and context of population.
Finally, the dating techniques is the last part of the evidence to be examined, and it is the most controversial evidence so far.As has been presented in the data, the results of the dating of each site is variable, depending on type of dating methodologies used.It is unfortunate that the traditional radiocarbon dating does not stretch back this far in the past.Regardless of the dating methods being used, in the context of variation within a population allows for polymorphic diversity.
I feel strongly that the data needs to be re-examined and the issue of the place of the Levantine Pleistocene Hominid complex in Southwest Asia needs to be re-evaluated in terms of the degree of relatedness that Neandertals have with our species, the degree of interaction between the likely continually migrating “out of Africa” AMHS, and the very notion of what does constitute a population or even what constitutes a species, in terms of normal variation.
Bar-Yo Bar-Yosef, O. 1988. The Date of South-West Asian Neandertals. L’Homme de Neandertal, vol. 3, L’anatomie, Liege, 1988 pp 31-38.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1992). Middle Paleolithic chronology and the transition to the UpperPaleolithic in southwest Asia.In G. Bräuer, & F. H. Smith (Eds.), Continuity or replacement?Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 261-272).Rotterdam: AA Balkema.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1998).The chronology of the Levant.In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O.Bar-Yosef (Eds.) In: Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia (pp 39-56). New York: Plenum Press.
Brauer, G. The “Afro-European sapiens-Hypothesis” and Hominid Evolution in East Asia During the Late idle and Upper Paleolithic. InR. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle (eds.) Human Evolution Source Book. Prentice-Hall. pp. 446-460.
Campbell, Bernard. 1985. Human Evolution. Aldine Publishing Company. New York.
Corruccini, R. S. (1992). Metrical reconsideration of the Skhul IV and IX and BorderCave 1 Crania in the context of modern human origins.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87, 433-445.
Franciscus, R. G., & Trinkaus, E. (1995).Determinants of retromolar space presence in Pleistocene Homo mandibles. Journal of Human Evolution, 28, 577-595.
Jelinek, A. J. (1990). The Amudian in the context of the Mugharan tradition at theTabun Cave (Mount Carmel), Israel. InP. Mellars (Ed). The emergence of modern humans: an archaeological perspective(pp 81-90). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kidder, J. H. & R. L. Jantz. 1993. Defining Modern Humans: A Multivariate Approach. In: G. Brauer & F. Smith (eds) Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. pp 157-177.
Rak, Y. (1998). Does any Mousterian cave present evidence of two hominid species? In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia(pp 353-366) New York: Plenum Press.
Rightmare, G. P. 1993. Patterns in the Evolution of Homo erectus. InR. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle (eds.) Human Evolution Source Book. Prentice-Hall. pp. 381-385.
Santa Luca, A.P. 1978. "A re-examination of presumed Neandertal-like fossils." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 7, pp. 169-636.
Schwartz, H. P. and W. J. Rink. Progress in ESR and U-Series Chronology of the Levantine Paleolithic. In In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press. NY. pp 57-67.
Stringer, C. B. (1989). The origin of early modern humans: a comparison of theEuropean and non-European evidence.In P. Mellars,& C. Stringer (Eds,). The human revolution (pp 232-244) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stringer, C. 1992.Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In In: G. Brauer & F. Smith (eds) Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution.pp 9-24.
Suzuki, H., & Takai F. (1970). The Amud man and his cave site. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Trinkaus, E. (1983). The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press.
Valladas, H, Mercier, N., Joron, J-L., and J. L.Reyss. 1998. GIF Laboratory Dates for Middle Paleolithic Levant. In In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press. NY. pp 69-75.
Vandermeersch, B. (1989). The evolution of modern humans: recent evidence fromsouthwest Asia. In P. Mellars, & C. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution (pp155-164).Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wolpoff, M. H. 1989. The place of the Neandertals in human evolution. In E. Trinkaus (ed) The Emergence of Modern Humans. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. New York.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1999). Paleoanthropology. Boston. McGraw Hill.
Morphological and Archaeological Comparisons of the Levantine Neandertal and Archaic Homo sapiens Complexes.
In the field of paleoanthropology, where to place the Neandertals has been an unresolved and highly charged issue.When paleoanthropologists compare the morphology of Neandertals and Homo sapiens sapiens,usually the case is to compare the most robust, or “classic” Neandertals from Western Europe with the very gracile “Cro-Magnon” Homo sapiens sapiens from Europe.I think that this comparison can be a valid one, but only when also making comparisons of the Archaic Homo sapiens group and the Neanderthal group from the Near East.In this region, there are many cave sites situated in the modern state of Israel where the two groups lived side by side.Among the sites here are those of Kebara, Qafzeh, Tabun, Amud, Mount Carmel and Skhul.To me, the specimens overlap, where we have robust Archaic Homo sapiens that appear to fall into the range of Neanderthal characteristic morphology.There are many controversies about this region as well, particularly in terms of the dating of the sites.Some paleoanthropologists have suggested that these sites were inhabited at the same time, others say that each group occupied a particular site seasonally, retreated to other areas, and the sites were re-occupied by the other groups.Other paleoanthropologists suggest that the time frame for occupation differed by some 30,000 years and the two groups could never have had contact with one another.Perhaps both groups were really just one variable group of early humans that moved around, foraged, inhabited the same area, and mingled from time to time.This paper will compare the morphology and the material technological culture of these two groups of Hominids, and argue that because of their shared morphology, shared time and space, and shared technology, and that the two groups are actually part of one variable population.
Morphological Traits and Variation.
It is imperative to my discussion here to set out the accepted morphological traits that defines how a Neandertal is classified , and how an Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens (AMHS), is classified.This is not as cut and dry as it seems.Depending on which paleoanthropologist is doing the analysis, there really isn’t an accepted laundry list of characteristic traits that are consistently used.When paleoanthropologists compare the morphology of Neandertals and AMHS, it is usually the case to compare the most robust or “classic” Neandertals from Western Europe with the most gracile “Cro-Magnon” Homo sapiens from Europe.This is not a fair comparison by a long shot,in terms of variation, because these two are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of general skeletal and cranial robusticity on the one hand with the Classic Western European Neandertals and extreme skeletal and cranial gracility on the part of the Cromagnon. Where this becomes much more confusing is in the Levantine area of the Middle East, in the modern state of Israel, because the specimens that have been discovered at the various sites, such as Skhul, Amud, Qafzeh, Tabun, Kebara, and Mount Carmel all display characteristics that are intermediate in their morphological characteristics.(Wolpoff, 1999:594, 612).Further confusion comes into the picture, as the anatomically modern Homo sapiens have also been dubbed “proto-Cro-Magnons”, implying that these are indeed the true ancestors and precursors of modern Homo sapiens.(Bar-Yosef, 1988:31).
A discussion of the definition of accepted traits for both taxa is required and is as follows.
Neandertal Traits.
The Cranium.
It seems that there are different numbers of traits used to determine what is a Neandertal and what is not a Neandertal.Milford Wolpoff writes(1999): “No single feature can diagnose a Neandertal, any more than forensic scientists attempting to identify human dead can tell which race and individual comes from with a single osteological fragment”.Among the eight most commonly accepted diagnostic traits that define Neandertals are the following: an occipital bun, a suprainic fossa, position of the mastoid crest, position of the juxtamastoid crest, position of the mastoid process, the supraorbital torus, the supraorbital sulcus, a receding frontal bone, and lambdoidal flattening.( Kreger, C. David 2003, Wolpoff 1999).However, A. P. Santa Luca (in Kreger, D. C., 1978) used only four of these eight traits as being diagnostic of derived Neandertal traits: the presence of the suprainic fossa, the the mastoid crest, the juxtamastoid eminence, and the presence of a horizontal occipital torus with uniform vertical dimensions that has little occipital protuberance.
In addition to these traits, there are the general considerations of the shape of the cranium that are to be considered.The general shape of the Neandertal cranium is long and low, with a low forehead and with the presence of pronounced brow ridges. (Tatersall, 1995:12). The face of the Neandertals is another trait of note.Kreger (2003) highlights the characteristics of the face: “The Neanderthal face is distinctive for its significant midfacial prognathism. Features involved in this prognathism include a very anterior midface, retreated zygomatics, anterior position of the dentition, and the anterior position of the nasal aperture.”The overall size of the Neandertal cranium is impressive, with cranial capacity exceeding modern Homo sapiens populations (Wolpoff, 1999:663-664).On average, Neandertal cranial capacities for Wurmian populations is 1575 cubic centimeters (cc), whereas the average for modern Europeans is 1555 cc. (Wolpoff, 1999:664).The largest Neandertal cranial capacity recorded is, interestingly enough, of Amud I, which is 1740 cc in size, exceeding the largest European Neandertal’s 1641 cc of the La Ferrassie specimen. (Suzuki, H. and F. Takai, 1970:124).
Further, there are characteristic Neandertal traits in the mandible.Modern humans posess a forward projecting chin, and the Neandertals do not, being characterized as “chinless wonders”.In addition to this, Neandertals have a gap behind the third molar and in front of the vertical ramus of the mandible. (Tatersall, 1995:13)This is also referred to as the retromolar gap. (Wolpoff, 1999:811), and is considered to one of the more diagnostic features of Neandertals.
The Neandertal face, as described by the classic forms, was dominated by a very prominent nose; overall, the face of the classic Neandertal was characterized byprognathism. (Wolpoff, 1999:667).The size of the nose is supposed to be related to cold adaptation. (Wolpoff, 1999:668-669).
Postcranial Traits.
Postcranially, Neandertals had a build that was “…more robust than that of modern people, and generally shorter, with a broad rib cage, long collar bones, and wide shoulder blades. Forearms and lower legs were relatively short, and the limb bones heavily built with thick walls. Joining surfaces were large.In the pelvis the hip joint faced further outward, and at the front the upper surface of the pubis was long and slender. The hands were especially strongly build, with broad fingertips. (Tatersall, 1995:14).Neandertals have been described as “short and stocky”, but this description is usually made in comparison to modern humans.For the known postcranial remains, the average height of eight male Neandertals was 165 cm, and for five females, an average of 156 cm.(Wolpoff, 1999:676).Weight estimates are more tricky, but for European Neandertals, estimates range from an average of 80 kg for females and 84 kg for males.(Wolpoff, 1999:676).
Variation.
Variation is an important theme when looking at populations.Between populations, you have variation in morphology.Within populations there always exists variation in morphology.Variation is and can be a relative term and is one that can often breed some degree of confusion, depending on what you are comparing.Wolpoff (1989:97) states that “the problem has become one of the relationship of Neandertals to the European populations of today”.There can be some degree of confusion in terms of agreement in what traits are typically Neandertal, and what aren’t.Sometimes the same paleoanthropologist has trouble agreeing with himself on these traits.
In the Levantine site of Amud, Tatersall(1995a:181) mentions the skeleton of a young male Neandertal who was “the tallest Neandertal yet discovered, with a stature of about five feet ten inches).He goes on to say “…even quite late Near Eastern Neanderthals failed to show the exaggerated characteristics of their kind exhibited by their “classic” contemporaries in western Europe. If the Amud individual was unusually tall, then another Neanderthal from the not too far distant and approximately contemporaneous Israeli cave of Kebara was unusually massive”. (Tatersall, 1995a:181-182).
Does it seem to be a fair comparison, to compare Neandertals of “classic” typology with modern human populations?I think the comparisons in terms of variation have to certainly be made between groups that exist in a contiguous geographic area, sharing the same area, the same resources, and similar morphologies.
AMHS Traits.
Anatomically modern humans are supposed to be more “gracile” than Neandertals.Cranially, there is increased encephalization.G. Brauer examines up to 100 metrical and non-metrical characters in determining how to quantify the 1)shape and size of the cranial bones by means of measurements and descriptive characters, and 2) to determine the development of the phylogenetrically relevant superstructures by means of descriptive characters. (Brauer, 1993:448-449).Six general features to define anatomically modern Homo sapiens have been put forth, and these comprise five metrically determined characteristics and one observable feature: 1) a short, high cranium with a ratio of basion-bregma height to length of 0.70 or a vertex radius to glabello-occipitallenght ratio of 0.64; 2)a parietal angle of less than 138 degrees; 3) a bregma-asterion chord/biaserionic breadth ratio of more than 1.19; 4) a frontal angle of less than 133 degrees; 5) a discontinuous supra-orbital torus; 6) an occipital angle of greater than 114 degrees. (Kidder and Jantz, 1992:157).We get a much more reasonable assessment of the characteristics of the morphological changes that characterize modern Homo sapiens from Wolpoff (1999:722-723): There is a lower face reduced significantly; “Supraorbital reduction and a straighter frontofacial angle; a foramen magnum shifting rearward relative to the sides of the cranial base, a reduction in mandible length as the face becomes less prognathic;as well as overall changes in the robusticity of the cranium and post-cranial morphology and anatomy.Basically AMHS has a high skull, high maximum breadth, rounded skull, weak or absent browridge and a strong chin.
Shared Morphological Traits in the Levant or Polymorphology?
The fossils themselves have to be addressed here in terms of their current classification, distinctive morphological traits, and why they are considered to be classified as they are and by whom, and why.We will begin with the sites considered to be Levantine Neandertal sites, and then move on to the ones considered to be Levantine AMHS sites.
Amud.
The site of Amud is considered to be a Levantine example of a specimen that is Neandertal in morphology, and there are at least 16 specimens represented from this site (Wolpoff, 1999:610).The most complete specimen is Amud I, who is the tallest Neandertal ever found, being 174 cm tall, and with a long cranium that is the largest cranial capacity of any of the Levant specimens at 1,740 cubic centimeters. (Wolpoff, 1999:611; Suzuki & Takei, 1970:124).Figure 1-2 show the Amud I cranium.
On cursory examination, it is evident that Amud I is of Neandertal extraction.However, Amud I is very similar, in terms of cranial morphology, to the specimen of Skhul VI (See Figures 5 and 6), which is considered to be of AMHS stock.Suzuki and Takai (1970), consider Amud I to be “less advanced” than the Shanidar specimens, which is considered to be Neandertal in typology, but also “morphologically less advanced” than Skhul VI, but also similar enough in cranial morphology to be considered to be included in the typology of Skhul VI.Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998) have done a re-evaluation of Amud I’s morphology, particularly of the cranium.They have found Amud I’s cranial to be intermediate between Neandertal and AMHS in morphology. (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998:314).Amud I’s post-cranial anatomy is “as distinct as its cranium and it differs from those of both the Neandertals and AMHS”. (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998:315).This statement flies in the face of those who would characterize Amud I as being “classic Neandertal” in morphology.
Tabun.
The site of Tabun is another that has been considered to be one of the Levantine sites with Neandertal representatives.The specimen of Tabun I, is male, and is shown in Figure 7. Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998:313), indicate that the specimens of Tabun I and Tabun II, based on a reevaluation of the cranial and mandibular evidence,are intermediates between AMHS and Neandertal.Further, the female specimen Tabun II has one of those hallmarks of AMHS, and that is that Tabun II has a chin!(Rak, 1998:354).Rak states quite clearly: “I would like to stress, therefore, that my insistence on recognizing a true chin in Tabun II is based on the topography of the anterior section of the mandible, which consists of the unique morphological components defined above as constituting a true chin.”(Rak, 1998:355).In addition to this, the retromolar space, one of those typical characteristics of Neandertals, is missing in the mandible of Tabun II. (Rak, 1998:360-361)So again, we see here a mix of traits that are intermediate between Neandertals and AMHS.
Kebara.
The site of Kebara is considered to be Neandertal, and the specimen from Kebara is that of a male postcranial skeleton, as well as the mandible and hyoid bone (the first intact hyoid discovered of a Neandertal, See Figure 8). (Wolpoff, 1999).Unfortunately, the cranium is missing from Kebara 2.(See figure 9).The reason that the discovery of the hyoid bone of a Neandertal is so important is because in the debate over whether or not Neandertals were capable of producing speech, it was previously thought that their hyoid bone was not shaped like the hyoid bone of modern Homo sapiens.(Wolpoff, 1999).
Kebara 2 has been one of those specimens that has been reevaluated in recent literature, and there are new claims that the traits that previously defined it as being Neandertal, are actually traits that are intermediate between AMHS and Neandertal. (Arensburg and Belfur Cohen, 1998:317-318)
Qafzeh.
The specimens of the site of Qafzeh are considered to be anatomically modern Homo sapiens.The classic example is Qafzeh IX, which looks very modern in its features.It is also the “type specimen” for Qafzeh, meaning it is the specimen by which all of the others from the site are compared.However, the specimen of Qafzeh VI is considered to be more “craniophenetically closer to Neandertals than to the true anatomically modern people of the European Upper Paleolithic.”(Corruccini, 1992).Does this discrepancy in morphological mixing of characters at the same cave site indicate that there is something wrong with classifying one site as being either Neandertal or AMHS?Figure 3 is of Qafzeh VI and Figure 4 is Qafzeh IX.Corruccini, (1992:440) argues that “…Qafzeh crania are all too often blithely referred to as anatomically modern, or “fully modern” without supporting argumentation”. So, the championing of the fossil hominids from Qafzeh as being “fully modern” seems to be in doubt, as the specimens again can be considered to be intermediate in form between AMHS and Neandertal.
Skhul.
The site of Skhul is another problematic one in terms of classification.The specimens from Skhul are considered by general consensus to be anatomically modern Homo sapiens.Yet, the cranium Skhul VI, as well as Skhul IX, exhibit many traits that are more Neandertal than AMHS. (Corruccini, 1992).“Craniometric comparison demonstrates that IV and IX amplify the picture of continuous gradations of Neandertal-to-modern variations throughout the Levant; much variation is thus represented within this one site, raising serious questions about Neandertals and moderns being discrete and long-separated species.”(Corruccini, 1992:443).Figure 5 and 6 show Skhul VI, and its mix of Neandertal like traits, and bear out this conclusion.I see a mix of traits characteristic of Neandertal and early Homo sapiens, particularly in Skhul VI.
Arenburg and Belfer-Cohen (1998:311) believe that there really were no morphologically distinct Neandertal’s in the Levant/Near East region, and that the population as a whole was a polymorphic one, with both the “Neandertal” types and AMHS, or “proto-Cro-Magnon” types to be of one constantly changing, continuously evolving population.
Shared Culture: The Archaeology of the Levant.
The dominant technology present in each and every one of these Levantine cave sites is Mousterian, or a mix of Levallois-Mousterian. (Bar-Yosef, 1995).This commonality of a shared technological complex is significant.Why would two separate species, or two separate populations, distinct from one another, and in no way coming into contact with one another have the same tool kit?The Mousterian technology has a very long and old lineage not only in the Levant, but also in Europe as well.The earliest Mousterian technologies present in the Levantine sites is the Levallois-Mousterian, also called Acheoulo-Yabrudian technology, which have been found at Tabun, Kebara, and Shukbah.(Bar-Yosef 1998:40-41).These assemblages, found at the lowest levels of each site respectively, date from 250,000-350,000 years ago. (Bar-Yosef, 1998:45).These technologies and dates indicate the time period associated with Homo erectus.(Wolpoff, 1999).The next tool technology found at all of the Levantine sites is the typical Mousterian technology, regionally dubbed “Tabun D-type”, “Tabun C-type” and “Tabun B-type”.(Bar-Yosef, 1998:44-47).These tool technologies are found at both the sites considered to be Neandertal, and at the sites considered to be AMHS, particularly at Qafzeh and at Skhul.(Bar-Yosef, 1998:47).
Shared Space: The Proximity of Sites and Possibility of Both Forms Present in the Same Site.
The sites in question here are all in a very close geographical area in Southwest Asia.
Bar-Yosef(1998), describes the region of Southwest Asia as a “central bus station” of the Pleistocen migration routes splanning Africa, Asia and Europe.The sites of Qafzeh (See Figure 10), Amud, Skhul, Kebara, and Tabun are all within one hundred kilometers of one another, and often, as in the case of Tabun and Skhul, they are virtually right next door to each other. (Bar-Yosef, 1998:40).I think that since this “central bus station” for human migration was continuously used, and that populations were always meeting and mingling.The fact that there is shared space is significant and it goes hand in glove with the shared technology.Indeed, one paleoanthropologist sees that both AMHS and Neandertals have been found in the one particular site of Tabun. (Rak, 1998:363-364).
Osteometric Measurements and Comparisons Showing Variation.
For the purposes of my argument, I will use the osteometric measurements of the cranium,as these measurements will show that the Hominids from the Levant area are indeed intermediate in comparison to Classic Neandertals of Western Europe, and modern humans, including Cro-Magnons.James Kidder and Richard Jantz(1992) have undertaken a multivariate approach at defining modern humans.Table 1 shows the results of their multivariate approach with special reference to the fossils from Qafzeh, Skhul, Tabun, Amud and Kebara as compared to “Classic Neandertals” , Cro-Magnons, and a sample of modern humans.(See Table 1).It is clear from these osteometric measurements of the crania of Classic Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, modern humans and the Levantine specimens, that the Levantine specimens lie directly in between, statistically speaking, Neandertals and modern humans.
Shared time?Dating of the Levantine sites.
Dating of the various sites in the Levant has been complicated and problematic.The relative dating of sites using stratigraphic methodologies has been augmented by the use of thermoluminescence dating, or TL.Other dating techniques include Electron Spin Resonance, or ESR, and U-series dating.
TL dating can be used as a reliable method of dating burnt flint, and the principle goes something like this: if a flint falls into a fire, it loses the energy it received during prior burial and this event sets the time clock to zero; after a hearth is abandoned, the flint can again store the energy received from within and without. (Valladas, Mercier, Joron, and Reyss, 1998:69-70).The dates that have resulted using TL dating for the sites relevant to this paper are as follows: 1) Qafzeh—102-85 thousand years ago (kya); 2)Skhul—119-118 kya; 3)Tabun—306 kya-171 kya; 4) Kebara—61.6-48.3 kya; 5) Amud—50-70 kya.(Valladas, Mercier, Joron, and Reyss, 1998:70-74).
The ESR dates for two of these sites follow:1) Tabun—386-151 kya; 2) Amud—43-59 kya. (Schwarcz and Rink, 1998:62-64).
The problem that these dates present is that the sites of supposed AMHS are in general before, by thousands of years, the sites with Neandertal specimens, with the exception of the Tabun dates, of course.The different dates presented have fed into the arguments about whether or not these are distinct populations, separated by vast amounts of time.
Multiregional Evolution vs. “Out of Africa Replacement” Theories/Models.
In paleoanthropology there are two dominant theories for the spread of human beings throughout the world, the “multiregional” theory and the “out of Africa” theory, with the additional “replacement” model being added to the latter.In his “Descent of Man”, Charles Darwin who came up with the idea that the human species evolved in Africa.(Campbell, 1985:368).This postulated “leap of faith” that Darwin made was based upon the taxonomic and anatomical similarities that human beings have with the great apes of Africa.Darwin was proved to be right in the end, with the discoveries of early Hominids by Raymond Dart and Louis and Mary Leakey in the twentieth century.Further discoveries on the continent have all but placed Africa as the cradle of human origin.
With discoveries in Asia of Homo erectus and possibly Homo ergaster, the first “out of Africa” migration is dated at between between 2.0 and 1.5 million years ago. (Rightmare, G. P. 1993:381).According to the multiregional model, Homo erectus, in this initial move out of Africa, populated Europe, Western and Eastern Asia, and Indonesia, and gradually arrived in Australia early on, and evolved independently into Homo sapiens. As Wolpoff (1999:543) puts it: “Multiregional evolution is a model of evolutionary process that stems from the basic observation that soe of the combinations of features that distinguish major human groups such as Asians, Australians, and Europeans evolved over a long period of time close to or at the places these people are found today”.The multiregional model allows for a continuous gene flow to occur between these isolated groups, thereby having a situation where an initially polytpical species evolves in a gradualistic way into the one species that we find today, namely, our own.The multiregional model also allows for a punctuated evolution to occur as well.Multiregional evolution does not claim that there is any single one point of origin for our species.
The out of Africa model has within it two ideas, one more extreme than the other.The first is that the fossil record shows that a population of anatomically modern human beings had evolved in Africa and spread out of Africa, and gradually replaced the earlier and more “archaic” human beings; the second is the “eve” hypothesis, that all modern human beings derive from one particular small population of human beings from Africa.(Wolpoff 1999:563-565).
Where things get sticky is the place of Neandertals in these two evolutionary scenarios or models.In the multiregional model, Neandertals evolve into modern Europeans, just as the Homo erectus, in the form of “Peking Man” from the caves of Zhoukoudian in China evolved into modern Chinese peoples, Mungo Man in Australia evolved into modern Australian Aborines, “Java Man” evolved into modern Indonesians, etc. (Wolpoff 1999:565).In the “out of Africa” model, there is implied the theme of “replacement” of the earlier forms that have been discovered in the fossil record.(Wolpoff 1999:563).
Chris Stringer is one of the strongest proponents of this replacement model.He sees complete replacement of all archaic forms of the genus Homo by AMHS between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago. (Stringer, 1992:14).He sees the hominids from Qafzeh and Skhul as being archaic Homo sapiens, and not as intermediate or transitional forms between Neandertals and AMHS.(Stringer, 1992:9).
Discussion.
It has been suggested that the Neandertal specimens that have been found in the Levant, specifically the specimens found at the sites ofAmud, Tabun, and Kebara, were the result of the expansion of the glaciers during a particular cold period in the Wurmian Ice Age.The argument goes that as these glaciers, and the climatic changes that go with them, favored the Neandertals to migrate south out of Europe, and expand their range.Now, whether the “cold adapted” Neandertals needed to retreat from extremes in this glacial period, or they just happened to be adapted to the kind of climate that suddenly presented itself as a range expanding opportunity, depends on the individual doing the research, and whether or not this explanation supports his particular point of view in terms of paleoanthropological theory.If you are a replacement theorist, such as Chris Stringer, you see the ebb and flow of two populations that never come into contact with one another, because of their relative expansion or contraction of their range, due to these climatic shifts and movements of the glaciers.One major flaw I can see in this logic is that modern human beings have been successful, because of their innovations in technology, in colonizing virtually the entire planet!I think it is a major flaw in the “out of Africa” models that there would be only two movements of humanity out of the continent of Africa( well, three if you count the retreat from Qafzeh and Skhul because of inclement weather), in the entire history of our species.I tend to think that there was constant movement throughout the history of our genus and species.The isolation of Classic Neandertals in western Europe seems to be the exception here, and I think that they were the ones who were reproductively isolated from the rest of the gene pool.I think that the Levantine hominids were a polymorphic population, the result of a constant movement of early humanity in and out of Africa.The fact that there is shared technology and shared morphological traits, and shared space should be enough evidence to show that this is the case.The fact that the dating of these sites and specimens places what seems to be the more anatomically modern humans at a date more distant in the past than the hominids which were more “Neandertal-like” does not mean that the population in question was not polymorphic in nature.I think that relying on a very linear view of evolution is risky, and it is also a simplistic view.
Conclusion.
The evidence examined in this paper, namely the morphological comparisons, the archaeological data, the osteometric measurements, and the overlapping time sequences all point to a great degree of likelihood that the populations of Hominids present in the Levantine part of Southwest Asia during the late Pleistocene fall within the definitions of a single population.The strongest supporting data here in favor of this argument is the morphological comparisons and osteometric comparisons, in short, comparing the bones via definitions of morphological characteristics and comparing the measurements of these established osteometric points, particularly those comparisons that describe and measure to cranial anatomy.There is significant statistical overlapping of the measurements to indicate the normal range of variation within one population, or one species.The Levantine Hominids, taken as a group, lie statistically right in between what is considered to be modern Homo sapiens, and Classic Neandertals.
Further supportive evidence is the shared technology and shared culture of both groups, that is, Mousterian culture in the form of the lithic tool kits that both groups possessed.Though some of the materials differ from site to site, it is clear that the technology is the same.The fact that we have the same kind of shared material cultural artifacts in both sites is very significant, as it points to either of two conclusions, that is, that there was at the minimum some sort of interaction between two distinct groups of Hominids, or that since there was shared morphology, space, time, that there would be shared culture as well within the normal variation and context of population.
Finally, the dating techniques is the last part of the evidence to be examined, and it is the most controversial evidence so far.As has been presented in the data, the results of the dating of each site is variable, depending on type of dating methodologies used.It is unfortunate that the traditional radiocarbon dating does not stretch back this far in the past.Regardless of the dating methods being used, in the context of variation within a population allows for polymorphic diversity.
I feel strongly that the data needs to be re-examined and the issue of the place of the Levantine Pleistocene Hominid complex in Southwest Asia needs to be re-evaluated in terms of the degree of relatedness that Neandertals have with our species, the degree of interaction between the likely continually migrating “out of Africa” AMHS, and the very notion of what does constitute a population or even what constitutes a species, in terms of normal variation.
Bar-Yo Bar-Yosef, O. 1988. The Date of South-West Asian Neandertals. L’Homme de Neandertal, vol. 3, L’anatomie, Liege, 1988 pp 31-38.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1992). Middle Paleolithic chronology and the transition to the UpperPaleolithic in southwest Asia.In G. Bräuer, & F. H. Smith (Eds.), Continuity or replacement?Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 261-272).Rotterdam: AA Balkema.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1998).The chronology of the Levant.In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O.Bar-Yosef (Eds.) In: Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia (pp 39-56). New York: Plenum Press.
Brauer, G. The “Afro-European sapiens-Hypothesis” and Hominid Evolution in East Asia During the Late idle and Upper Paleolithic. InR. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle (eds.) Human Evolution Source Book. Prentice-Hall. pp. 446-460.
Campbell, Bernard. 1985. Human Evolution. Aldine Publishing Company. New York.
Corruccini, R. S. (1992). Metrical reconsideration of the Skhul IV and IX and BorderCave 1 Crania in the context of modern human origins.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87, 433-445.
Franciscus, R. G., & Trinkaus, E. (1995).Determinants of retromolar space presence in Pleistocene Homo mandibles. Journal of Human Evolution, 28, 577-595.
Jelinek, A. J. (1990). The Amudian in the context of the Mugharan tradition at theTabun Cave (Mount Carmel), Israel. InP. Mellars (Ed). The emergence of modern humans: an archaeological perspective(pp 81-90). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kidder, J. H. & R. L. Jantz. 1993. Defining Modern Humans: A Multivariate Approach. In: G. Brauer & F. Smith (eds) Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. pp 157-177.
Rak, Y. (1998). Does any Mousterian cave present evidence of two hominid species? In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia(pp 353-366) New York: Plenum Press.
Rightmare, G. P. 1993. Patterns in the Evolution of Homo erectus. InR. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle (eds.) Human Evolution Source Book. Prentice-Hall. pp. 381-385.
Santa Luca, A.P. 1978. "A re-examination of presumed Neandertal-like fossils." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 7, pp. 169-636.
Schwartz, H. P. and W. J. Rink. Progress in ESR and U-Series Chronology of the Levantine Paleolithic. In In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press. NY. pp 57-67.
Stringer, C. B. (1989). The origin of early modern humans: a comparison of theEuropean and non-European evidence.In P. Mellars,& C. Stringer (Eds,). The human revolution (pp 232-244) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stringer, C. 1992.Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In In: G. Brauer & F. Smith (eds) Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution.pp 9-24.
Suzuki, H., & Takai F. (1970). The Amud man and his cave site. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Trinkaus, E. (1983). The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press.
Valladas, H, Mercier, N., Joron, J-L., and J. L.Reyss. 1998. GIF Laboratory Dates for Middle Paleolithic Levant. In In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, & O. Bar-Yosef (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press. NY. pp 69-75.
Vandermeersch, B. (1989). The evolution of modern humans: recent evidence fromsouthwest Asia. In P. Mellars, & C. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution (pp155-164).Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wolpoff, M. H. 1989. The place of the Neandertals in human evolution. In E. Trinkaus (ed) The Emergence of Modern Humans. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. New York.
Wolpoff, M. H. (1999). Paleoanthropology. Boston. McGraw Hill.